October 2016

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The mantra coming from some circles today is that if you're one who thinks the prudent taking in of Syrian refugees (particularly women and children) is a good thing, then you must be a leftist, an Obama shill, a dolt, or much worse.

So it was refreshing this morning to come across this piece by Matthew DesOrmeaux over at United Liberty that actually enumerates some of the good that might just come... one or two of which I had not particularly considered:

As a timely post at the libertarian Niskanen Center makes crystal clear, there are several good reasons that the US should continue accepting refugees and not abandon desperate, hopeless people because of fear.

3. Other migration channels are easier to exploit than the U.S. refugee process.

4. [Daesh] sees Syrian refugees as traitors.

5. Turning away allies will make us less safe.

6. America should demonstrate moral courage.

Those are all very good reasons, backed up with significant historical data. I encourage everyone to read the entire post. It addresses most of the arguments against refugee intake that I’ve seen over the last few days.

But there are at least two additional, equally important reasons we shouldn’t shut our doors to refugees of Islamist violence.

Numbers 3, 4 and 6 particularly ring true for me but it's the two additional ones and especially the last one that I consider to be exceptional food for thought.

Fraternal correction is defined as the admonishing of one's neighbor with the purpose of reforming him, or, if possible, preventing his sinful indulgence in the first place. The very idea of this makes America 2015 ™ cringe, because even to most Christians, those who are responsible for fraternally correcting each other, the concept of evaluating the behavior of another person is absolutely taboo if not wholly laughable. How did we get here? Tons of hypocritical fraternal correction? Maybe, but I doubt it. Because even if you are a moral zero, the truth is still the truth. It doesn't care whose mouth it comes from. I should still recognize it as the truth. The ten commandments recited by any mouth are the same words, and I need to heed them regardless of the identity of the messenger at the moment.

Warnings of the wages of sin in today's first world are seen as disrespectful, antiquated, invasive, rude, uncool, judgmental, self-righteous and self-congratulatory. They are almost never viewed, by the majority, as what they are intended to be: borne of love, or what they are commanded by God to be: a spiritual work of mercy [see here for an expounding on that concept... *Rick].

I'm fairly certain that fraternal correction gets a bad rap because no one wants to stop sinning, not because of a long history of fraternal correction gone awry. The West praises and extols the open minded, open mouthed, enlightened, and progressive. Consent is the singular litmus test for the inherent good of a human act. The only sin is to call something a sin. In this climate, the ultimate deference you can tribute to someone is to respect their choice, regardless of how destructive the consequences, respect their lifestyle, no matter how counter to the Gospel it screams.

The thing is, we do have to honor the conscience of our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we do have an obligation to stop tinkering in the lives of the unchurched if they tell us to bugger off. But atheist Penn Jillette once observed that he had no patience for non-preaching Christians, because they were essentially watching him stand in the way of a speeding train, that is, if they really believed what they claimed to. So faced with these two poles, what does a well-intentioned Catholic do?

The question I'd ask those who want to use non-state means to punish mom-and-pop businesses that decline to cater gay weddings is what, exactly, their notion of a fair punishment is. Nearly every supporter of gay marriage is on board with efforts to publicly tell people that their position is wrongheaded–I've participated in efforts like that for years and insist that respectful critique and persuasion is more effective than shaming. What about other approaches? If their Yelp rating goes down by a star does the punishment fit the "crime"? Is there a financial loss at which social pressure goes from appropriate to too much? How about putting them out of business? Digital mobs insulting them and their children? Email and phone threats from anonymous Internet users? If you think that any of those go too far have you spoken up against the people using those tactics?

(If not, is it because you're afraid they might turn on you?)

A relatively big digital mob has been attacking this powerless family in rural Indiana, but I don't get the sense that its participants have reflected on or even thought of these questions. I don't think they recognize how ugly, intolerant and extreme their actions appear or the effect they'll have on Americans beyond the mainstream media, or that their vitriolic shaming these people has ultimately made them into martyrs. I fear that a backlash against their tactics will weaken support for the better angels of the gay rights movement at a time when more progress needs to be made, and that they're turning traditionalists into a fearful, alienated minority with a posture of defensiveness that closes them off to persuasion.

And that's a shame.

The religious impulse to shy away from even the most tangential interaction with gay weddings can be met with extremely powerful and persuasive counterarguments so long as we're operating in the realm of reason rather than coercion–so long as we're more interested in persuading than shaming or claiming scalps. Thanks to past persuasion, evangelicals are already evolving on this issue, as David Brooks points out, observing that "many young evangelicals understand that their faith should not be defined by this issue. If orthodox Christians are suddenly written out of polite society as modern-day Bull Connors, this would only halt progress, polarize the debate and lead to a bloody war of all against all."

As an example of a persuader, consider my colleague Jonathan Rauch, who advises the faithful that while they might mean "just leave us alone," others hear, "what we want most is to discriminate against you," a needlessly alienating message when there is "a missionary tradition of engagement and education, of resolutely and even cheerfully going out into an often uncomprehending world, rather than staying home with the shutters closed." He adds, "In this alternative tradition, a Christian photographer might see a same-sex wedding as an opportunity to engage and interact: a chance, perhaps, to explain why the service will be provided, but with a moral caveat or a prayer. Not every gay customer would welcome such a conversation, but it sure beats having the door slammed in your face." The best way forward for all sides is to love one another, or at least to act as though we do.

It's a good read and an exceptional counter to the prevailing idiocy insisting that all gay marriage opponents are bigots and Bull Connors wannabees.

And it's a hopeful sign that there exists amongst the left a mindset still open to reason and true tolerance.

The Church, as is her custom, does not offer us a program for harboring the harborless, any more than it writes us a recipe book to buttress her command to feed the hungry. It’s pretty much up to us how we are to live out the ideal. So, for instance, some people start — and many people support — homeless shelters, shelters for runaways and shelters for battered women and drug addicts, etc. Others (with more courage than most of us, including me) take homeless people into their homes. This is radical charity. It is also quite dangerous, as a woman I know discovered when her grateful guests fled the premises with her wallet and embarked on a campaign of identity theft.

This brings us to a point many well-meaning people discover in painful ways: Just because somebody is a victim doesn’t mean they can’t be bad too. Hitler, after all, was homeless once. It’s easy, in the flush of excitement over conversion, to leap into a Franciscan zeal for the homeless, only to discover that the homeless guy you want to help is homeless not because he’s one of the wretched of the earth whom fate has dealt a bad hand, but because he’s a violent, unstable person who bites the hand that feeds him.

Sometimes, the bum suffers, not from bum luck, but from sitting on his sinful bum. Sometimes, it really is better for professionals to handle things than to assume that your sanctity will melt the heart of the guy who, if you but knew it, is wanted in three states.

Yet, all that said, we are still commanded to harbor the harborless. And there are ways to do it both with personal involvement and via financial support — without compromising our own safety and well-being.

For instance, in the 1980s, a small nondenominational church in Seattle started sponsoring refugees. I remember it well because it was my church. Our pastor arranged with a relief agency to help a Vietnamese family who had walked through Pol Pot’s Killing Fields in Cambodia and seen corpses stacked like cord wood. We also sponsored families from communist Romania and Poland.

That’s not just an evangelical thing. Catholics can do it too, especially Catholic parishes that pool their considerable resources.

Of course, in keeping with G.K. Chesterton’s famous remark that Catholics agree about everything and only disagree about everything else, it’s worth noting that the question of just how to harbor the harborless has no one-size-fits-all approach.

The American episcopacy (and many priests and lay Catholics) are all over the map concerning how the Church should respond to illegal immigrants. Some of the confusion is due to the fact that the question of how the Church should respond is not the same as the question of how Caesar should respond.

A priest in Los Angeles is not bound by the question of whether the human being at his door is legal. He is bound by the fact that the human being at his door is Jesus Christ.

At the same time, foolish things have been said to the effect that America is like Nazi Germany for so much as having an immigration policy. This is silly. Every state needs a way of screening out dangers to the common good. So trying to create a system of legal immigration that works is just common sense. Laws should be respected.

No nation on earth has been as welcoming of the stranger as the United States has — a testimony to the penetration of this particular corporal work of mercy into the American psyche. How this particular struggle to live out this corporal work of mercy will play out, I do not know.

But if we follow our historical pattern, we can hope that the stranger from the south will find a welcome as did the stranger from Ireland, elsewhere in Europe and Asia.

An excellent piece, perhaps answering some of the great questions raised in the comments of this earlier post.

Do read the whole thing and consider reading Mark's other contributions to the series (links found at the bottom of the post).

Tuesday, February 04, 2014

He's climbed a number of rungs on the ladder of respect with me after reading what follows from the WaPo:

The last person Richard Sherman may have expected to seek him out after the Super Bowl was among of the first who found him deep within MetLife Stadium Sunday night.

Peyton Manning sought him out to inquire about the high ankle sprain that had Sherman on crutches and in a walking boot.

“He was really concerned about my well-being,” Sherman said. “After a game like that, a guy who’s still classy enough to say ‘How are you doing?’ To show that kind of concern for an opponent shows a lot of humility and class.”

...

“He’s a Hall of Fame player, he’s a living legend, he’s a record-holding quarterback,” he said, “he’s a Super Bowl champion, he’s been a Super Bowl MVP.”

Sherman continued his defense of Manning on Twitter, admonishing Seahawks fans to ease up.

Peyton is the Classiest person/player I have ever met! I could learn so much from him! Thank you for being a great Competitor and person

Wednesday, December 04, 2013

"Tips for Jesus" is their name, leaving massive tips at restaurants is their game.

From a $1,500 tip at a restaurant in San Francisco to a $10,000 tip left at a bar in Indiana, a mysterious person -- or people -- have been extra generous. And it’s all being chronicled on Instagram under the username @tipsforjesus.

The account launched in September, and has more than 16,000 followers as of Tuesday -- which happens to be Giving Tuesday, a national initiative to encourage charity at the start of the holiday shopping season.

The few dozen photos that have been posted thus far capture snapshots of receipts, with signatures simply signed “@tipsforjesus," in reference to their Instagram account.

Recently, Tips for Jesus paid visits to LA restaurants The Hungry Cat and Fig and Olive, and left $1,000 tips on each meal. They also left $500 on a $24 bill at Jumbo’s Clown room in Hollywood in early October.

Tips for Jesus has generated so much attention that servers from Georgia to Canada are turning to the Instagram page, and asking @tipsforjesus to visit their restaurant.

The question is – who is behind Tips for Jesus, and why are they doing it?

It appears those behind Tips for Jesus wish to remain anonymous, but it can be inferred that they are well-off – given the generosity, and trips around the country.

There's a chance they're college football fans, too – given that the day they left two $5,000 tips at a Notre Dame bar, the receipt also read “Fight On!” – USC’s slogan. That same day was the USC-Notre Dame football game.

As for why? Well, their Instagram bio sums it up best: “Doing the Lord’s work, one tip at a time.”

And while some may think it’s too good to be true, Tips for Jesus ensures that this is 100 percent real – even posting screen shots of their credit card statements, verifying that the charges are going through.

Outstanding.

Think on this the next time you leave a couple of bucks on the table for your server.

Monday, November 25, 2013

People line up on the issues. Unfriendings occur. People stop seeing old acquaintances whose company they used to enjoy, but whose politics they find revolting.

And yet the social media skirmishes are a pretty minor problem when compared with the subtle way division occurs in our closest relationships. It really is the triumph of Satan when families decide that the battle for unity is no longer worth it.

Sister-in-law has totally crossed the line with her insensitive comments. Mother-in-law doesn’t understand personal boundaries. Brother has made bad choices with his life. Sister is so perfect she makes everyone else look bad. So many families, even families untouched by major family schisms like divorce or abuse–Christian families–come unhinged when relatively minor grievances take on inflated significance.

Having strong emotional reactions to everything that happens in a family almost always ends in emotional exhaustion, and finally in indifference. Our worlds become smaller. Our thoughts and emotions grow bigger. And Jesus becomes more and more a theoretical entity that we’re always trying to meet in our minds and hearts, but are rarely meeting in real relationships.

When I say, “Christ must increase, and I must decrease!”–how does that happen? How does Christ become bigger to me, so big that my own interests, doubts, insecurities and confusions disappear into his vast presence?

Ms. Duffy attempts (successfully in my view) to answer her own questions at her place.

Check it out. Have a meaningful Thanksgiving. This, when heeded, will help make it so.

Thursday, June 06, 2013

A loyal reader of this blog and someone who lives in Oklahoma wrote and sent me what follows this morning. She gave me permission to post it and I'm glad:

Hi Rick,

I am a regular reader of your blog, which I really enjoy. I think you do a great job with it! I live in the great state of Oklahoma and so first, I wanted to say thank you for the posts you did after our recent tornados. In some ways, it is sure becoming a small world, isn't it?

In addition, I saw this article yesterday on one of the local Oklahoma City news channels. Since you not only made information available to your readers about different ways they could help, but also more importantly, you prayed and asked for others to pray for the people of our state, I wanted to share this with you. The article contains a thank you from Mikki Davis, who is the mother of one of the children who died in the Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore, and it's a really nice message.

I'm honored by Kathy's note and grateful for her loyalty. I hope I can do that which keeps her coming back.

I also hope that you'll take the time to watch the video at Kathy's link and the story about little Kyle Davis (pictured). Simply powerful.

I hope as well that some of you will take a moment to read the posts Kathy references (here and here) and do what you can, what God might place on your hearts, to help. The wife and I sent a check to Catholic Charities there shortly after the first post.

Thank you Kathy... and a big thanks to all who have helped, are helping or will help.

Saturday, June 01, 2013

Five tornadoes — one a half-mile wide — struck the Oklahoma City area Friday evening, terrorizing communities already battered by deadly storms this spring.

The Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner told NBC News seven adults and two children are confirmed dead, including a mother and her small child. At least five people killed were in vehicles and may have been trying to flee as dark clouds gathered and warning sirens wailed, authorities said.

Hospitals in Oklahoma City reported 104 injuries, including five critical patients.

Horrific stuff.

Once again I reach out to readers, as I'm sure many others are doing, asking that you consider helping out, not matter the amount.